atheists answer this
Posted on: June 30, 2008 - 1:49pm
Offline
atheists answer this
atheists all seem to operate on just as many blind faiths lacking in evidence as the most staunch theists. the blind faith that humanity knows all there is to know about what is and is not logically possible. how can anyone claim to know the limits of logical possibility?
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
- Login to post comments
i dont bury my head in the sand when something i dont like comes along. and i would not rather people lie. i would rather people be as open minded and accepting of other peoples beliefs as they would like others to be of theirs.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
i would never require it of anyone to believe in a god.
"Whenever you find a man who says he doesn't believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later."
-C.S. Lewis
You are going out on a limb with that second sentence, unless you have literally observed every point on the earth simultaneously, or have built a reliable worldwide werewolf detector. All you can say is "no reports of the phenomenon have ever been found credible".
You can also say "the phenomenon is physically impossible, due to problems with violating basic physical laws such as conservation of matter and energy"; after all, where would the extra mass for the transformation come from?
Now, please note that these two statements apply both to werewolves and any god.
See the parallels?
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
That is not an ontology. A list of attributes and functions is meaningless without substance to apply them to. We've already established that it's "not nature". So what is it?
These two sentences are in direct conflict with one another.
And I am showing you why that is a foolish thing to say. Never mind what Christians believe, YOUR OWN definition of "god", as it stands, is ontologically equivalent to "nothing". How much "faith" does is it take to disbelieve that "nothing" created the universe and oversees human affairs?
I'm not asking for evidence. That is a privilege that is earned AFTER coherency is established.
I didn't ask why you believe. You said this:
"god is outside science"
I asked this:
"How did you figure that out?" (i.e., by what means)
I still don't get this. Earlier you said "god" created the universe - does that constitute an interaction with nature? (HINT: yes)
Or are you saying nowadays he just chooses not to? You still need to answer the question either way: by what mechanism does a supernatural entity interact with nature?
there isn't concrete evidence that there are no werewolves on earth. the earth hasn't been completely checked for werewolves. and werewolves are not limited by the same scientific laws that humans are either. it's a man that turns into a wolf for cryin out loud. so why is your disbelief in werewolves more justifiable than my disbelief in god?
don't you think you are being a little arrogant here? not only do you not have silver bullets but you're declaring that werewolves don't exist with a degree of certitude you couldn't possibly have.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Special pleading.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Not to disprove your idea of god? Why shouldn't I? Why should I try to disprove claims made by people about things they cannot prove? The concept of this god is more concret or real than the concept presented in the movie the matrix, that this reality is nothing more than a computer generated reality, you cannot prove this anymore than you can prove your god? So why should I believe you and your claims of gods? Why shouldn't I be allowed to disprove the god(s) presented to us by religion? Why shouldn't I be allowed to disprove the dogma presented to us by religion? or other people that believe in god but don't follow religion? It is our right with freedom of speech to express our opinions about this, you don't have to like it, but I am allowed to laugh at your idea of god or disprove in anyway that I can, or disagree with your idea of god. Just as you have the right to express your opinion on atheism.
Actually there is NO concrete evidence that werewolves exist that is why we can deductively assume that werewolves do not exist. Stating that there is evidence to support the non-existence of werewolves is flawed.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
I'm a Power Ranger. I spend my days fighting Putties and evil monsters using awesome kung-fu moves and a robot dinosaur.
Do you believe what I just said?
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Aha... I see where you're coming from. That being the case, we should definitely abolish all political parties, and we should certainly make sure nobody forms any kind of movement. You know, like the environmental movement, women's rights, etc. All kinds of groups out there tell people they should live their lives differently than they do, and you have a point. It's really, really bad to offend people. It's so bad, that everyone should always accept everybody else, no matter what.
From now on, I accept your world view, and I'll never tell you when I disagree with you. I'm also retracting everything bad I've ever said about racists and pedophiles. After all, they have their own view on the world, and its' not up to me to tell them what they're doing is harmful to themselves and others. It's better not to offend.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Sure sounds ridiculous of me to say that you don't know, so you can't say so. But it's true. You don't know for certain that there aren't any werewolves. Maybe they live in a secret bunker deep beneath the ground in a remote forest in Canada. Nobody would ever notice them. You simply can't say for sure unless you can see every possible place on the planet at the same time! (They could move around while you were surveying another place, after all!)
Guess what. It is kind of silly to say that werewolves might exist. There's no evidence for them. None at all. To say that they exist is foolish.
Now you know why we're atheists. For the same reason you're an a-werewolfist.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
There is no HARD CONCRETE evidence that leprechans, the tooth fairy, and magical unicorns don't exist either. There's a reason for that. I don't have to come up with evidence that something doesn't exist. Holy shitrock.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm sorry, you'll have to run that by me again. Do you mean to say the only imaginary creature that gets special treatment is whatever god you choose? C'mon. That's just being silly.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Shitrock, try the ideas above on for size. Just two sentences, no mincing of words, and no evasion or metaphysical dodging. If something doesn't exist, there probably won't be any evidence of it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Then it is not blind faith to not believe in something that is undefined. If there is no concept of a god then there is no active rejection of a belief. A two day old child that has no knowledge of the entire world does not have blind faith in his lack of knowledge, he just hasn't been exposed to knowledge.
Your point is to show that Atheists are engaging in an active process of blind faith akin to the believer who has blind faith in a particular concept of what a god is. Until you present a concept and match it to our supposed blind faith then you don't have a point to make.
Gawed has evidence ? Where ? I want to see. I heard he was amazing , and a dude of course, like me, his favorite kind .... way macho, powerful too.
Atheism Books.
Not me. But thanks for illustrating YOUR faith on the issue.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Or perhaps it's placing God outside the realm of science that's flawed.
Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.
Why Believe?
Yeah , how dare us for thinking , pluck our eyes out , save ourselves, on our knees .... pray ???? Does any one know the prayer !!!? The dogmists say they do .....
WHY does DOGMA still work ?
What is Dogma ?
Dogma is all of religious labeling of division, fueled by peoples fear of life and death, offering false cures, spurred by the greed of the sick authoritarians. ~~~
I AM GOD , and no division is possible , the perfection is me, the christ , just as YOU , as all is 100% god .... Fuck dogma.
dogma ------>
<----- christ YOU / ME / GOD
Story Jesus went to the temple and trashed the place. Why? Ask yourself, no other, YOURSELF. Do your 40 days, ALONE .....
Atheism Books.
This one is easy. Logic is finite. What a person cannot claim is "that they know what is illogically possible".
bodhi
Do you think you got an answer ?
Have an answer?
Yup, god done it ! .... NO NO NO , not that god .... >"GAWED"< .... shezz, everyone knows that much !
Hey, don't lie about god ..... oh shit , there they go again ..... religion LIES LIES LIES, stinky dogma shit .... ain't good for ya, POISON, toxic patriotism.
Atheism Books.
Russell's teapot, enough said.
On Completeness and Soundness of formal logical systems
(a more accessible explanation of Godel: by Nagel)
On the current applications and limits of logic
A book on the logic of possibility and necessity *
This is why we know the limits of logic. These texts are not for beginners, but are fascinating if you can hang through the learning curve.
Please, if your query was an honest one, read the Nagel book. It's something like a hundred pages and about US$15.
*I have no idea why that book is so expensive, any introductory text will probably suffice, but this is the only book on the topic I have read. As Quine states in 'Philosophy of Logic', though: 'There is no use whatsoever for modality in logic.' [paraphrased]
If I have gained anything by damning myself, it is that I no longer have anything to fear. - JP Sartre
Next time someone asks me for a list of examples of logical fallacies, I'm pointing them to Shitrock's posts in this thread. I think he's got 'em all covered.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray